An Intraindividual Comparison of Open versus Paine Retinaculotome Release for Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome *
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fernandes C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10212645 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThis study evaluated functional outcomes and safety after endoscopic and open bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome release in opposite hands of the same patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data.Materials and methodsRandomized controlled trials involving both methods in opposite hands of patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were identified via a systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE.ResultsRelative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from five randomized controlled trials involving 142 patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were calculated using fixed- or random-effect methods, with a length of follow-up from 24 to 52 weeks after surgery. Compared with open release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated with significantly better Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire functional status scores (mean difference [MD] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02 - 0.25]; P = 0.02), but not symptom severity scores (RR = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15 to 0.04]; P = 0.25). Endoscopic release required a longer operative time, but the procedures did not differ significantly in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.08 to 0.11]; P = 0.75), handgrip strength (MD = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.03 to 2.37]; P = 0.88), digital sensibility static two-point discrimination (MD = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.03 to 0.70]; P = 0.07), or complication rates (MD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.05], P = 0.47).ConclusionFrom intraindividual evidence, endoscopic release promoted better recovery of daily life functions than open release, but required a longer operative time. The procedures provided similar symptom relief and hand strength and sensibility recovery, and were safe for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.
| S-EPMC4831419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to determine if simultaneous bilateral carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a cost-effective strategy compared with bilateral staged CTR for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.MethodsA decision analytic model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three strategies (ie, bilateral simultaneous CTR, bilateral staged CTR, and no treatment). Direct medical costs were estimated from 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale drug costs in US dollars. Indirect costs were derived from consecutive patients undergoing unilateral or simultaneous bilateral CTR at our institution and from national average wages for 2013. Health state utility values were derived from a general population of volunteers using the Short Form-6 dimensions (SF-6D) health questionnaire.ResultsBoth surgical strategies were cost effective compared with the no-treatment strategy. Bilateral simultaneous CTR had lower total costs and higher total effectiveness than bilateral staged CTR, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $921 per quality-adjusted life year compared with the no-treatment strategy. The conclusions of the analysis remained unchanged though all sensitivity analyses, displaying robustness against parameter uncertainty.ConclusionsSurgical management is cost effective for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Bilateral simultaneous CTR, however, has lower total costs and higher total effectiveness compared with bilateral staged CTR.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis I.
| S-EPMC5539762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe authors performed an intra-individual comparison of surgical results between the open and endoscopic surgical techniques in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Each hand was submitted to surgery using one of these techniques.MethodsFifteen patients (30 hands) were evaluated by the Boston Questionnaire, visual analogue pain scale, palmar grip strength, and for tip, key, and tripod pinch strengths. These measurements were taken before surgery and at two weeks, one month, three months, and six months after the procedure. Scores for each evaluation tool in each evaluation time period were compared.ResultsIn comparison to the group submitted to open surgery, the group submitted to endoscopic surgery had worse scores in the evaluation of the 1st and 6th postoperative months regarding the severity of the symptoms. The authors found no differences in the functional status of the hand. Regarding the intensity of pain evaluated by the visual analogue pain scale, no difference was found between the averages in all time periods evaluated. No differences in palmar grip strength and in fingertip, key (lateral), and tripod pinch strengths were found in all time periods. There were no differences between averages in the preoperative period at two weeks, one month, and three months after surgery. After six months, the group of patients submitted to open surgery presented greater tripod force than the group of patients who underwent endoscopic surgery.ConclusionNo differences were observed by using the intra-individual evaluation in the results between open and endoscopic techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.
| S-EPMC6204539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).ResultsECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC8177000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel release (CTR) is a surgical treatment option for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms that are unresponsive to conservative treatment. Most patients experience symptomatic relief after CTR regardless of the surgical technique. However, direct comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between CTR surgical techniques are limited. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of CTR with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) versus mini-open CTR (mOCTR) in subjects with symptomatic CTS.Design and methodsTUTOR (Trial of Ultrasound guided CTR versus Traditional Open Release) is a randomized controlled trial in which 120 subjects at up to 12 sites in the United States will be randomized (2:1) to receive CTR-US or mOCTR. The primary endpoint of the study is the percentage of patients who return to normal daily activities within 3 days of the procedure. Secondary endpoints of the study are median time to return to normal daily activities, percentage of patients who return to work within 3 days of the procedure, median time to return to work, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) change score at 3 months, BCTQ Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) change score at 3 months, Numeric Pain Scale change score at 3 months, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) change score at 3 months, and the incidence of device- or procedure-related adverse events at 3 months. Patient follow-up in this trial will continue for 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by a central institutional review board and ongoing trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). The authors intend to report the results of this trial at medical conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of TUTOR will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with CTS.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT05405218.Level of evidence1.
| S-EPMC9575820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerforming open carpal tunnel release (oCTR) in an office-based procedure room setting (PR) decreases surgical costs when compared with the operating room (OR). However, it is unclear if the risk of major medical, wound, and iatrogenic complications differ between settings. Our purpose was to compare the risk of major medical complications associated with oCTR between PR and OR settings.MethodsUtilizing the MarketScan Database, we identified adults undergoing isolated oCTR between 2006 and 2015 performed in PR and OR settings. ICD-9-CM and/or CPT codes were used to identify major medical complications, surgical site complications, and iatrogenic complications within 90 days of oCTR. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare complication risk between groups.ResultsOf the 2134 PR and 76,216 OR cases, the risk of major medical complications was 0.89% (19/2134) and 1.20% (914/76,216), respectively, with no difference observed in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% CI 0.53-1.33; P=0.45). Risk of surgical site complications was 0.56% (12/2134) and 0.81% (616/76,216) for the PR and OR, respectively, with no difference in the multivariable analysis (OR 0.68; 95% C.I. 0.38-1.22; P=0.19). Iatrogenic complications were rarely observed (PR 1/2134 [0.05%], OR 71/76,216 [0.09%]), which precluded multivariable modeling.ConclusionThese results support a similar safety profile for both the PR and OR surgical settings following oCTR with similar pooled major medical complications, pooled wound/surgical site complications, and iatrogenic complications.
| S-EPMC8274797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disease treated operatively. During the operation, the patient may be wide-awake or sedated. The current literature has only compared separate cohorts. We sought to compare patient experience with both local-only anesthesia and sedation. Methods: Staged bilateral carpal tunnel release utilizing open or endoscopic technique was scheduled and followed through to completion of per-protocol analysis in 31 patients. Patients chose initial hand laterality and were randomized regarding initial anesthesia method: local-only or sedation. Data collection via questionnaires began at consent and continued to 6 weeks postoperatively from second procedure. Primary outcome measures included patient satisfaction and patient anesthesia preference. Results: At final follow-up, 6 weeks postoperatively, high satisfaction (30 of 31 patients per method) was reported with both types of anesthesia. Among these patients, 17 (54%) preferred local-only anesthesia, 10 (34%) preferred sedation, 2 had no preference, and 2 opted out of response. Although anesthesia fees were approximately $390 lower with local-only anesthesia, total costs for carpal tunnel release were not significantly different with respect to the anesthesia cohorts. Total time in surgical facility was approximately 26 minutes quicker with local-only anesthesia, largely due to shorter time in the post-anesthesia care unit. Scaled comparison of worst postoperative pain following the 2 procedures revealed no difference between local-only anesthesia and sedation. Conclusions: Patients reported equal satisfaction scores with carpal tunnel release whether performed under local-only anesthesia or with sedation. In addition, local-only anesthesia was indicated as the preference of patients in 59% of cases.
| S-EPMC7850244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate changes in the median nerve, retinaculum, and carpal tunnel on ultrasound after successful endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).Materials and methodsThis prospective study involved 37 wrists in 35 patients (5 male, 30 female; mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 56.9 ± 6.7 years) with primary carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). An in-house developed scoring system (0-3) was used to gauge the clinical improvement after ECTR. Ultrasound was performed before ECTR, and at 1, 3, and 12 months post-ECTR. Changes in the median nerve, flexor retinaculum, and carpal tunnel morphology on ultrasound after ECTR were analyzed. Ultrasound parameters for different clinical improvement groups were compared.ResultsAll patients improved clinically after ECTR. The average clinical improvement score ± SD at 12 months post-ECTR was 2.2 ± 0.7. The median nerve cross-sectional area proximal and distal to the tunnel decreased at all time intervals post-ECTR but remained swollen compared to normal values. Serial changes in the median nerve caliber and retinacular bowing after ECTR were more pronounced at the tunnel outlet than at the tunnel inlet. The flexor retinaculum had reformed in 25 (68%) of 37 wrists after 12 months.ConclusionPostoperative changes in median nerve and retinaculum parameters were most pronounced at the tunnel outlet. Even in patients with clinical improvement after ECTR, nearly all ultrasound parameters remain abnormal at one year post-ECTR. These ultrasound parameters should not necessarily be relied upon to diagnose persistent CTS after ECTR.
| S-EPMC8236373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundApproximately 56% of patients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome present with bilateral symptoms; however, few studies have investigated bilateral simultaneous endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and postoperative effect on return to activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the length of recovery in patients who received bilateral simultaneous ECTR, including pain medication requirements, return to activities of daily living, return to work, and return to recreational activities.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent bilateral ECTR by a single hand fellowship-trained surgeon from 2013 to 2019. Demographic, operative, and clinical outcomes were collected via chart review and a telephone interview. Student t tests and χ2 tests were conducted for analysis.ResultsEighty patients were included in the study; 40 were successfully contacted for telephone interview follow-up. Patients reported an average of 2 days of use of postoperative narcotic pain medication and an average of 5, 7, and 19 days of return to activities of daily living, work, and recreational activities, respectively. Female patients reported more days of narcotic pain medications (1 day vs 3 days, P = .0483) and an average of longer return to work than men (9 days vs 5 days, P = .0477). Manual laborers reported longer return to work (9 days vs 5 days, P = .0500). Older patients (aged >65 years) reported longer return to recreational activities (39 days vs 11 days, P = .0189).ConclusionsSimultaneous bilateral ECTR is a successful procedure with shorter recovery times than reported previously. Female patients, manual laborers, and older patients experience a longer recovery and should be counseled appropriately.
| S-EPMC9274870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has purported advantages over open release such as reduced intraoperative dissection and trauma and more rapid recovery. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has been shown to have comparable outcomes to open release, but open release is considered easier and safer to perform. Previous studies have demonstrated an increase in carpal tunnel volume, regardless of the technique used. However, the mechanism by which this volumetric increase occurs has been debated. Our study will determine through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis the morphologic changes that occur in both open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and ECTR, thereby clarifying any morphologic differences that occur as a result of the 2 operative techniques. We hypothesize that there will be no morphologic differences between the 2 techniques. Methods: This was a prospective study to compare the postoperative anatomy of both techniques with MRI. Nineteen patients with clinical and nerve conduction study-confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome underwent either open or endoscopic release. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively in all patients to examine the volume of the carpal tunnel, transverse distance, anteroposterior (AP) distance, divergence of tendons, and Guyon's canal transverse and AP distance. Results: There was no significant difference in the postoperative morphology of the carpal tunnel and median nerve between OCTR and ECTR at 6-month follow-up on MRI. Conclusion: We conclude that there are no morphologic differences in OCTR and ECTR. It is an increase in the AP dimension that appears to be responsible for the increase in the volume of the carpal tunnel.
| S-EPMC8120591 | biostudies-literature